SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2013 DATA

(1)

(2)

Global experience

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical

knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many different

terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines

for good practice by individual members.

Consistent high quality database and guidelines

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best

practice throughout the world.

The oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop

consistent databases and records in certain fields. OGP’s members are encouraged to use

the guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies

and regulations which may apply locally.

Internationally recognised source of industry information

Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and

safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government

organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.

Disclaimer

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,

neither OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its

or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability

is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the

recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any

subsequent recipient of such terms.

Copyright notice

The contents of these pages are © The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.

Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP

and (ii) the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior

written permission of the OGP.

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England

and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of

(3)

Report No: 2013s

July 2014

(4)

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers,

OGP, has been collecting safety incident data from its

member companies globally since 1985. The data collected

are entered into the OGP safety database, which is the

largest database of safety performance in the E&P industry.

The principal purpose of the data collection and analysis is

to record the global safety performance of the contributing

OGP member companies on an annual basis. The

submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by

OGP membership. The annual reports provide trend

analysis, benchmarking and the identification of areas and

activities on which efforts should be focused to bring about

the greatest improvements in performance.

The OGP incident reporting system covers worldwide

exploration and production (E&P) operations, both

onshore and offshore, and includes incidents involving both

member companies and their contractor employees.

The key indicators presented are: number of fatalities, fatal

accident rate, fatal incident rate, number of lost work day

cases and number of lost work days, total recordable injury

rate, lost time injury frequency, number of restricted duty

case and restricted duty days, and number of medical

treatment cases. The report presents contributing OGP

members’ global results for these indicators, which are

then analysed by region, function and company. A code is

used to preserve the anonymity of the reporting company,

which will typically report its own data as well as that of its

associated contractors (see Appendix C).

In 2010, data collection was initiated to capture “causal

factors” associated with fatal incidents and high potential

events. These data are presented in section 2.11 of this report.

Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. The

data underlying the charts are presented in Appendix B. The

causal factors and chart data are available to OGP members

in editable format from the members’ area of the OGP

web-site. The tables are organised according to the section in the

report where the chart appears.

Fatal incident and high potential event descriptions

previously included in this report as appendices C and D

are now available for download on the OGP Safety Zone

website:

http://info.ogp.org.uk/safety.

The main changes to the 2013 report are:

• The addition of TRIR presented by country (see

Section 3.7)

• FAR and LTIF by function are now presented as 5-year

rolling average instead of the 3-year rolling average

• The region previously named South America is now

referred to as South & Central America. The change

does not affect the historical results in this report.

These changes reflect the Safety Data Subcommittee’s aim

to improve the consistency of presentation of the data.

Scope of reporting and data validation

This report is published with two separate addendums

which can be downloaded from the OGP public website.

These provide the narrative descriptions for the fatal

incidents and high potential events which have been

reported by the participating member companies. The data

requested from participating OGP member companies are

published in an annual User Guide in two parts:

• Part A contains definitions and the scope of the safety

data submission. This document is published on the

OGP public website.

• Part B contains practical information for the Company

nominees submitting the data, copies of the data

submission forms and a data submission checklist.

The safety data submission process is used for the collection

of data relating to safety performance, process safety

performance and motor vehicle crashes. The OGP safety

database has built-in data validation requirements and

each company data submission is validated by the OGP

secretariat and the workgroup (Safety Committee

Sub-Committee, Task Force or Network) responsible for the

data set in accordance with the OGP data collection and

reporting procedure. Any communication with reporting

companies is conducted by the OGP secretariat and any

data validated by an OGP workgroup is blind coded to

preserve the anonymity of the reporting companies. A

self-assessment questionnaire is included within the data

submission process to determine the alignment between

the requested data and the company submissions. The

information provided in this questionnaire is also used in

the validation process. Data that appear to be incorrect and

that cannot be confirmed by the submitting company as

correct may be excluded from the data set at the discretion

of the secretariat.

The scope of data included within this report is detailed in

Appendix A.

(5)

Data series

Other OGP data reports include:

• Environmental Performance Indicators

• Health Performance Indicatorst

• Process Safety Event Data.

These are available from the OGP website:

(6)

The safety statistics for 2013 were derived from data

provided by the following companies:

Contributing OGP Members

Addax Petroleum Limited

Adnoc

Anadarko

Bashneft

BG Group

BHP

BP

Cairn Energy

Cairn India

Chevron

CNOOC

ConocoPhillips

Dolphin Energy

Dong E&P

E.ON

eni

ExxonMobil

GALP

GDF Suez E&P International

Hess Corporation

INPEX

Kosmos

Kuwait Oil Company

Maersk Oil

Marathon Oil Company

MOL

Nexen Inc

Oil Search

OMV

Pan American Energy

Pemex

Perenco

Petrobras

PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd

Premier Oil

PTT EP

Qatar Petroleum

RasGas

Repsol

RWE Dea AG

Sasol

Shell Companies

Statoil

Suncor

Talisman Energy

Total

Tullow Oil

Wintershall

Woodside

Yemen LNG

(7)

Executive Summary

vii

1. Summary

1-1

1.1 General ... 1-1

1.2 Fatalities ...1-2

1.3 Total recordable injuries ...1-4

1.4 Lost time injuries ...1-5

2. Overall results

2-1

2.1 Fatalities ...2-1

2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) ...2-2

2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity ...2-3

2.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours ...2-5

2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) ...2-6

2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) ...2-7

2.7 Lost work day cases by categories and activities ...2-8

2.8 Severity of lost work day cases ...2-14

2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases ...2-16

2.10 Incident triangles ...2-18

2.11 Causal factors analysis ... 2-20

2.12 OGP Life-Saving Rules ... 2-24

3. Results by region

3-1

3.1 Fatalities by region ...3-1

3.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) by region ...3-2

3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) by region ...3-2

3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) by region ...3-3

3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF – 5-year rolling averages by region ... 3-4

3.6 Severity of lost work day cases by region ...3-5

3.7 Individual country performance ...3-5

3.8 Incident triangles by region ...3-8

4. Results by function

4-1

4.1 Fatalities by function ...4-1

4.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) – 5-year rolling average ...4-2

4.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) by function ...4-3

4.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) – 5-year rolling average by function ...4-3

4.5 Severity of lost work day cases by function ... 4-4

4.6 Exploration performance ...4-5

4.7 Drilling performance ...4-7

4.8 Production performance ...4-9

4.9 Construction performance ...4-11

4.10 Unspecifed performance ... 4-13

5. Results by company

5-1

5.1 Overall company results ...5-1

5.2 Company results by function ...5-9

(8)

(9)

The 2013 OGP Safety Performance Indicators show that the

Fatal Accident Rate for reporting companies has decreased

by 11% compared with 2012. The number of fatalities has

decreased from 88 in 2012 to 80 in 2013. 33 of the fatalities

reported in 2013 occurred in 3 incidents.

Analysis of the fatal incident descriptions has shown that

at least 67% of the fatal incidents reported in 2013 can

be linked to failure to follow the OGP Life Saving Rules

published in March 2012, see OGP report 459.

There are a number of common causal factors related to the

fatal incidents and high potential events from 2010 to 2013.

The top 5 causal factors for 2013 are also the 5 causal factors

that consistently appear in the 2012, 2011 and 2010 top 10

for both fatal incidents and high potential events. These are:

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate

training/competence

• People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness:

Improper decision making or lack of judgment

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate

work standards/procedures

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate

supervision

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate

hazard identification or risk assessment

The 6

th

_{most common causal factor for fatal incidents, which}

did not show in the top 10 for High Potential Events, was:

• People (acts): Following procedures: Improper

position (line of fire)

Personal injury performance shows the lost time injury

frequency decreasing by 6% and the total recordable injury

rate decreasing by 8% compared with 2012 results. However

it can be seen that the severity of lost work day cases has

increased.

Four fatal incidents were as a result of process safety events.

Fig 0.3: Lost time injury frequency and total recordable injury rate

per million hours worked [Data page B-2 & B-3]

4 5 TRIR LTIF 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 _Fatalities 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Number of fatalities

FAR - Fatal accidents per 100 million hours worked

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Fig 0.2: OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2013 fatal incidents

per cent of total 2013 incidents [Data page B-6]

Fig 0.1: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate

2004–2013 [Data page B-2]

Insufficient information to assign a rule 14% No appropriate rule 19% Supplementary rules 51% Core rules 16%

(10)

(11)

The OGP safety performance indicators report

summarises the safety performance of contributing

OGP member companies for 2013.

The key performance indicators (KPI) used to benchmark

safety performance are: number of fatalities, fatal

accident and incident rates, total recordable injury rate

and lost time injury frequency.

Third party fatalities are not included in this report.

• The safety performance of contributing OGP

member companies in 2013 is based on the analysis of

3 771 million work hours of data.

• Submissions were made by 50 of the 62 operating

company OGP members.

• The data reported cover operations in 110 countries.

1.1 General

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

work hours contractor

Hours worked

(12)

Fig 1.2.1: Fatalities by reporting category, 2013

% fatalities associated with each reporting category

[Data page B-3]

Fig 1.2.2: Fatalities by activity, 2013

% fatalities associated with each activity [Data page B-3]

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.3% Struck by 12.5% Water related, drowning 21.3% Overexertion, strain 1.3% Other 26.3% Falls from height 3.8%

Exposure electrical 1.3%

Assault or violent act 11.3% Pressure release 7.5%

Caught in, under or between 8.8% Explosions or burns 5.0%

Unspecified – other 3.8%

Transport – water, inc. marine activity 15.4% Transport – air 21.8% Seismic/survey operations 2.6% Production operations 11.5% Transport – land 7.7% Drilling, workover, well services 16.7% Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 7.7% Maintenance, inspection, testing 12.8%

1.2 Fatalities

Against the background of a 2% increase in work hours

reported, the number of fatalities has decreased from 88

in 2012 to 80 in 2013. The 80 fatalities occurred in 43

separate incidents. The resulting Fatal Accident Rate (2.12)

is 11% lower than last year’s figure (2.38). The company and

contractor FAR are 1.83 and 2.20 respectively. Onshore and

offshore FAR are 1.70 and 3.27 respectively.

The reported fatalities are divided into ‘activity’ and

‘category’. The activity with the highest number of fatalities

reported by the OGP member companies is ‘Transport–air’

(22%) with 17 fatalities as a result of 2 separate helicopter

crash incidents. 13 fatalities (17%) were reported in 13

separate incidents in the ‘Drilling, Workover, Well Services’

activity and 12 fatalities (15%) were reported in 2 separate

events in the ‘Transport–water, including marine activity’

activity. These include a tug that capsized during static

tow operations to an export tanker in Nigeria in which

11 contractor employees lost their lives. One incident was

reported in the ‘production operations’ activity (11% of the

total fatalities) in which 9 company employees lost their

lives in a terror attack in Algeria.

With regard to the incident category, 21 of the fatalities

reported in 2013 (26%) were categorised as ‘Other‘ and were

related to 5 fatal incidents including the 2 helicopter crashes

in which 17 people died and 3 incidents in which 4 people

died for which the details were not available (2% of fatal

incidents reported in 2012 were in the category ‘Other‘).

Fatalities categorised as ‘Water related, drowning’ were the

second greatest contributors to the fatality statistics with 17

fatalities in 6 separate incidents, accounting for 21% of the

fatalities (1% in 2012). This includes the incident in Nigeria

where a tug capsized resulting in 11 contractor deaths.

(13)

The fatal accident rate for 2013 is 2.12, 11% lower than the

2012 rate. The offshore FAR (3.27) for 2013 is more than

three times the 2012 result (0.89) and the onshore rate (1.7)

fell by 41%.

Fig 1.2.3: Fatal accident rate - company and contractors

per 100 million hours worked [Data page B-2]

0 2 4 6 8 Overall Company FAR Contractor FAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

(14)

The rate for all recordable injuries (fatalities, lost work day

cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases)

was 1.60 injuries per million hours worked (1.74 in 2012).

The only region that showed an increase in TRIR in 2013

compared with the TRIR for 2012 was South & Central

America (3%).

A reduction in TRIR from 2012 to 2013 was shown in

Africa (8%), Asia/Australasia (29%), Europe (2%), FSU

(18%), Middle East (12%) and North America (9%).

1.3 Total recordable injuries

Fig 1.3.1: Total recordable injury rate – company & contractors

per million hours worked [Data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall

(15)

Confined space 0.2% Water related, drowning 1.3%

Exposure electrical 0.9% Pressure release 0.7% Assault or violent act 0.6% Exposure noise, chemical,

biological, vibration 1.2% Cut, puncture, scrape 6.1% Other 5.3% Explosions or burns 3.7% Overexerstion, strain 8.5%

Falls from height 10.8%

Slips and trips (at same height) 17.1%

Caught in, under or between 21.0% Struck by 22.6%

Transport – air 1.7% Seismic/survey operations 0.9%

Fig 1.4.2: Lost work day cases – by category

% LWDCs associated with each reporting category

[Data page B-4]

Fig 1.4.3: Lost work day cases – by activity

% LWDCs associated with each activity

[Data page B-4]

1.4 Lost time injuries

The overall Lost Time Injury Frequency (LTIF) fell from

0.48 in 2012 to 0.45 in 2013. This represents a reduction

of 6% compared with 2012 and 72 fewer lost time injuries.

This reduction is similar in both company and contractor

performance. The company and contractor LTIF both show

a reduction compared with 2012 (15% and 4% respectively).

The onshore and offshore LTIF both also show a reduction

compared with 2012 (11% and 5% respectively).

There were 1627 reported injuries resulting in at least one

day off work, 1312 incidents were contractor related and 315

were company related.

• OGP member companies reported 45 772 days of work

lost through injuries.

• The greatest number of incidents was reported as

‘Struck by’ (367 cases accounting for 23% of the total;

2012 results showed 408 cases accounting for 24% of

the total).

• ‘Caught in, under or between’ accounted for 341 cases,

21% of the total (21% of the total in 2012).

• The lost time injury frequency has plateaued from 2007

for both companies and contractors.

Fig 1.4.1: Lost time injury frequency – company & contractors

per million hours worked [Data page B-3]

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall

(16)

(17)

• 80 company and contractor fatalities were reported in

2013. This is 8 fewer than were reported in 2012 and 15

more than in 2011.

• The 80 fatalities occurred in 43 separate incidents.

• In 2013, 13 contractors died as a result of a single

helicopter crash in the rainforest in Peru.

• 11 contractors died when a tug capsized during static

tow operations to an export tanker in Nigeria.

• 9 company employees and 31 third party individuals

died as the result of a terror attack in Algeria.

• 4 contractors died as a result of a helicopter ditching in

the sea in the UK.

• There were 4 incidents that involved 2 fatalities.

These were;

2.1 Fatalities

In this section the primary indicators used to measure

contributing OGP member companies’ safety

performance are; the number and nature of fatalities,

total recordable injury rate (TRIR), fatal accident rate

(FAR), fatal incidents per 100 million work hours, and

lost time injury frequency (LTIF).

Third party incidents are not included in this report.

Company/contractor fatalities

Fatalities Onshore 2013 (2012) Offshore 2013 (2012) Total 2013 (2012) Company 13 (10) 2 (2) 15 (12) Contractor 34 (70) 31 (6) 65 (76) Total 47 (80) 33 (8) 80 (88) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 _Fatalities 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Number of fatalities

FAR - Fatal accidents per 100 million hours worked

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Fig 2.1.1: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate

(18)

Fig 2.2.1: Fatal accident rate – company & contractors

per 100 million hours worked [Data page B-2]

Fig 2.2.2: Fatal accident rate – onshore & offshore

per 100 million hours worked [Data page B-2]

2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)

• In 2013 there were 15 company fatalities (12 in 2012) as

a result of 7 separate incidents.

ê

9 of the company fatalities were as a result of a single

terror attack in Algeria in which a further 31 third

party individuals lost their lives.

• In 2013 there were 65 contractor fatalities (76 in 2012).

ê

13 of the contractor fatalities were the result of a

single helicopter crash in the rainforest in Peru.

ê

11 of the contractor fatalities were the result of a tug

capsize during static tow operations to an export

tanker in Nigeria.

The difference between the onshore and offshore FAR

displays a large variation over the 10-year period shown.

Neither is consistently lower. This is generally attributable

to single transportation or fire and explosion incidents

involving high numbers of fatalities.

0 2 4 6 8 Overall Company FAR Contractor FAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 0 2 4 6 8 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Onshore Offshore Overall

Fatal accident rate (FAR)

The number of company/contractor fatalities per

100 000 000 (100 million) hours worked.

2013 (2012) FAR Relative to 2012 FAR Company 1.83 (1.58) (16% higher) Contractor 2.20 (2.59) (15% lower) Overall 2.12 (2.38) (11% lower) Onshore 1.70 (2.87) (41% lower) Offshore 3.27 (0.89) (267% higher)

(19)

2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity

Fig 2.3.2: Fatalities by activity, 2013

% fatalities associated with each activity

[Data page B-3]

Fig 2.3.1: Fatalities by reporting category 2013

% fatalities associated with each reporting category

[Data page B-3]

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.3% Struck by 12.5% Water related, drowning 21.3% Overexertion, strain 1.3% Other 26.3% Falls from height 3.8%

Exposure electrical 1.3%

Assault or violent act 11.3% Pressure release 7.5%

Caught in, under or between 8.8% Explosions or burns 5.0%

Transport – water, inc. marine activity 15.4% Transport – air 21.8% Seismic/survey operations 2.6% Production operations 11.5% Transport – land 7.7% Drilling, workover, well services 16.7% Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 7.7% Maintenance, inspection, testing 12.8%

• The largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2013

were categorised as ‘Other’ (26%) (2% in 2012).

ê

13 of the fatalities were as a result of a single helicopter

crash in the rainforest in Peru

ê

4 of the fatalities were the result of a helicopter

ditching into the sea in the UK

ê

No detailed information was provided by the

reporting company for 2 incidents

• 21% of the fatalities reported in 2013 were categorised

as ‘Water related, drowning’ (1% in 2012).

ê

11 contractor employees lost their lives when a tug

capsized during static tow operations to an export

tanker in Nigeria

ê

2 workers died when their boat crashed and sank

during a water inspection in Mexico

ê

A technician drowned while bathing in a river in Peru

ê

One man was lost overboard when a seismic vessel was

hit by unexpected waves in Uruguay

ê

A contractor was lost overboard when the rig that he

was working on capsized in Angola

ê

A mud logger fell into the sea from the access ramp to

a tender barge in Myanmar

• 13% of the fatalities reported in 2013 were the result

of individuals being struck by falling or moving objects

(16% in 2012).

ê

Two of the fatalities involved separate motor vehicle

crashes

• 11% of the fatalities reported in 2013 were categorised

as ‘Assault or violent act’ (3% in 2012) and were the

result of a single terror attack in Algeria.

• A reduction is seen in the number of deaths resulting

from land transport incidents (6 fatalities) compared

with 2012 (9 fatalities in 2012, 15 in 2011).

ê

6 fatalities were associated with 6 separate incidents

• 35 of the fatal incidents involved one fatality.

(20)

Fatalities – by incident category and activity, 2013

A ss au lt o r v io le nt a ct Ca ug ht i n, u nd er o r b et w ee n Confi ne d s pac e Cu t, p un ct ure , s cra pe Ex pl osi on o r b ur ns Ex po sur e e le ct ri cal Ex po su re n oi se , c he m ic al , b io lo gi ca l, vi br ati on Fa lls fr om h ei gh t O ve re xe rt ion , s tra in Pre ss ure re le as e Sl ip s, t ri ps (a t s am e h ei gh t) St ru ck b y W at er r el at ed , d ro w ni ng O th er To ta l

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 6

Diving, subsea, ROV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drilling, workover, well services 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 13 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Maintenance, inspection, testing 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 10

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Production operations 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Seismic/survey operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Transport–air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17

Transport–land 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6

Transport–water, including marine activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 12

Unspecified–other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3

(21)

Fig 2.4.1: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours –

company & contractors

[Data page B-2]

Fig 2.4.2: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours –

onshore & offshore

[Data page B-2]

Fig 2.4.3: Number of fatalities and fatal incidents

10 year trend

2.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours

0 2 4 6 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall Overall FAR* 2 4 6 Onshore Offshore Overall Overall FAR* 120 140 Fatal incidents Fatalities

The number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours

is a measure of the frequency with which fatal incidents

occur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the frequency

of fatalities. Accordingly, for company and contractor

fatalities, the number of fatal incidents per 100 million work

hours will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison of

FAR and number of fatal incidents per 100 million work

hours gives an indication of the magnitude of the incidents

in terms of lives lost.

• Overall the number of fatal incidents per 100 million

work hours has decreased by 19% compared with last

year and is the lowest on record (43 fatal incidents in

2013, 52 fatal incidents in 2012).

Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours

2013 (2012) Relative to 2012 Company 0.85 (0.79) (8% higher) Contractor 1.22 (1.57) (22% lower) Overall 1.14 (1.41) (19% lower) Onshore 0.94 (1.58) (41% lower) Offshore 1.68 (0.89) (89% higher)

*FAR: Fatal Accident Rate

(22)

Fig 2.5.2: Total recordable injury rate – onshore & offshore

per million hours worked [Data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Onshore Offshore Overall

Fig 2.5.1: Total recordable injury rate – company & contractors

per million hours worked [Data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall

2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost

work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical

treatment cases) per 1 000 000 hours worked.

2013 (2012) TRIR Relative to 2012 TRIR Company 0.95 (1.12) (15% lower) Contractor 1.77 (1.90) (7% lower) Overall 1.60 (1.74) (8% lower) Onshore 1.33 (1.49) (11% lower) Offshore 2.34 (2.53) (8% lower)

Submissions without information on medical treatment

cases were filtered out, leaving a dataset of 3665 million

hours, 97% of the database (see Appendix A).

(23)

Fig 2.6.2: Lost time injury frequency – onshore & offshore

per million hours worked [Data page B-3]

Fig 2.6.1: Lost time injury frequency – company & contractors

per million hours worked [Data page B-3]

2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

• The overall LTIF decreased by 6% from 0.48 in 2012

to 0.45 in 2013.

• The company LTIF decreased by 15% compared with

2012.

There were 1627 reported lost work day cases resulting in

at least one day off work, which equates to an average of 31

injuries resulting in at least one day off work every week

of the year. Although the absolute number of LWDCs

has reduced (1699 in 2012), the time away from work has

increased compared with 2012. See Section 2.8 for further

information on Lost Work Day Case severity.

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Onshore Offshore Overall 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall 2013 (2012) LTIF Relative to 2012 LTIF

Company 0.40 (0.47) (15% lower) Contractor 0.47 (0.49) (4% lower) Overall 0.45 (0.48) (6% lower) Onshore 0.34 (0.38) (11% lower) Offshore 0.77 (0.81) (5% lower)

(24)

2.7 Lost work day cases by categories and activities

Of the 1627 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least

one day off work, 1312 incidents (81%) were

contractor-related and 315 (19%) were company-contractor-related (1356 and

343 respectively for 2012). The lost work day case category

was provided for all of the Lost Work Day Cases reported,

although 5% of the cases were categorised as ‘Other’.

The pie chart shows the percentage of LWDCs within each

of the reporting categories for 2013.

• The greatest number of incidents was reported as

‘Struck by’ (367 cases accounting for 23% of LWDCs),

(2012 results showed 408 cases accounting for 24%).

• ‘Caught in, under or between’ accounted for 21% of the

total reported cases (21% in 2012).

• In comparison with 2012, the 2013 results were very

similar.

Lost work day cases by category

Number %

Assault or violent act 10 0.6

Caught in, under or between 341 21

Confined space 4 0.2

Cut, puncture, scrape 99 6.1

Explosion or burns 60 3.7

Exposure electrical 14 0.9

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 20 1.2

Falls from height 176 10.8

Overexertion, strain 138 8.5

Pressure release 11 0.7

Slips and trips (at same height) 279 17.1

Struck by 367 22.6

Water related, drowning 21 1.3

Other 87 5.3

Total 1627

Confined space 0.2% Water related, drowning 1.3%

Exposure electrical 0.9% Pressure release 0.7% Assault or violent act 0.6% Exposure noise, chemical,

biological, vibration 1.2% Cut, puncture, scrape 6.1% Other 5.3% Explosions or burns 3.7% Overexerstion, strain 8.5%

Caught in, under or between 21.0%

Struck by 22.6%

Fig 2.7.1: Lost work day cases – by category

% LWDCs associated with each reporting category

[Data page B-4]

Lost work day case (LWDC)

A Lost work day case is an incident resulting

in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are

not included.

(25)

Company Contractor

Assault or violent act 2 8

Confined space 0 4

Cut, puncture, scrape 29 70

Explosion or burns 8 52

Exposure electrical 2 12

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 3 17

Falls from height 33 143

Overexertion, strain 35 103

Pressure release 2 9

Slips and trips (at same height) 79 200

Struck by 40 327

Water related, drowning 2 19

Other 16 71

Total 315 1312

Of the 1627 reported lost work day cases resulting in at

least one day off work, 879 incidents (54%) were related

to onshore activity and 748 (46%) were related to offshore

activity (972 and 727 respectively for 2012).

Other 5.1%

Water related, drowning 0.6%

Struck by 12.7%

Pressure release 0.6%

Overexertion, strain 11.1% Falls from height 10.5% Exposure – noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.0%

Exposure – Electrical 0.6%

Explosions or burns 2.5%

Cut, puncture, scrape 9.2%

Caught in, under or between 20.3% Assault or violent act 0.6%

Fig 2.7.2: Lost work day cases – by category

Company [Data page B-5]

Other 5.4%

Struck by 24.9%

Overexertion, strain 7.9%

Exposure – noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.3% Exposure – Electrical 0.9%

Explosions or burns 4.0% Cut, puncture, scrape 5.3%

Confined space 0.3%

Fig 2.7.3: Lost work day cases – by category

Contractor [Data page B-5]

Lost work day cases by category – company & contractors

(26)

Other 7.3%

Struck by 23.7%

Slips and trips (at same height) 20.0% Pressure release 0.9%

Overexertion, strain 7.4%

Falls from height 11.9% Exposure – noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.6%

Exposure – Electrical 0.5%

Explosions or burns 4.3% Cut, puncture, scrape 4.8%

Confined space 0.3%

Other 3.1%

Struck by 21.3% Slips and trips

(at same height) 13.8%

Overexertion, strain 9.8% Falls from height 9.5%

Exposure – noise, chemical, biological, vibration 0.8% Exposure – Electrical 1.3%

Explosions or burns 2.9%

Cut, puncture, scrape 7.6%

Confined space 0.1%

Fig 2.7.4: Lost work day cases – by category

Onshore [Data page B-5]

Fig 2.7.5: Lost work day cases – by category

Offshore [Data page B-5]

Onshore Offshore

Assault or violent act 7 3

Confined space 3 1

Cut, puncture, scrape 42 57

Explosion or burns 38 22

Exposure electrical 4 10

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 14 6

Falls from height 105 71

Overexertion, strain 65 73

Pressure release 8 3

Slips and trips (at same height) 176 103

Struck by 208 159

Water related, drowning 3 18

Other 64 23

Total 879 748

Of the 1627 reported lost work day cases resulting in at

least one day off work, 879 incidents (54%) were related

to onshore activity and 748 (46%) were related to offshore

activity (972 and 727 respectively for 2012).

(27)

Number % Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 146 9

Diving, subsea, ROV 9 0.6

Drilling, workover, well services 326 20 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 189 11.6 Maintenance, inspection, testing 241 14.8 Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 136 8.4 Production operations 223 13.7 Seismic/survey operations 14 0.9

Transport – air 27 1.7

Transport – land 91 5.6

Transport – water, including marine activity 106 6.5

Unspecified – other 119 7.3

Total 1627

Lost work day case activities were reported for all of the

1627 Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 7% of the

cases were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’. In 2012, 12%

were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’.

In comparison with 2012, 2013 results were very similar.

Fig 2.7.6: Lost work day cases – by activity

% LWDCs associated with each activity

[Data page B-5]

Lost work day cases by activity

Unspecified – other 7.3% Transport – water, including marine activity 6.5% Transport – land 5.6%

Transport – air 1.7% Seismic/survey operations 0.9%

Production operations 13.7% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 8.4% Maintenance, inspection, testing 14.8%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 11.6%

Drilling, workover, well services 20.0% Diving, subsea, ROV 0.6%

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 9.0%

(28)

Company Contractor Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 9 137

Diving, subsea, ROV 0 9

Drilling, workover, well services 28 298 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 26 163 Maintenance, inspection, testing 54 187 Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 48 88

Production operations 91 132

Seismic/survey operations 0 14

Transport – air 6 21

Transport – land 13 78

Transport – water, including marine activity 2 104

Unspecified – other 38 81

Total 315 1312

Fig 2.7.7: Lost work day cases – by activity

Company [Data page B-5]

Fig 2.7.8: Lost work day cases – by activity

Contractor [Data page B-5]

Lost work day cases by activity – company & contractor

Transport – water, including marine activity 0.6% Transport – land 4.1% Transport – air 1.9% Production operations 28.9% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 15.2% Maintenance, inspection, testing 17.1% Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 8.3% Drilling, workover, well services 8.9% Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 2.9% Unspecified – other 6.2% Transport – water, including marine activity 7.9% Transport – land 5.9%

Transport – air 1.6% Seismic/survey operations1.1%

Production operations 10.1% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 6.7% Maintenance, inspection, testing 14.3%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 12.4% Drilling, workover, well services 22.7% Diving, subsea, ROV 0.7%

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 10.4%

(29)

Fig 2.7.9: Lost work day cases – by activity

Onshore [Data page B-5]

Fig 2.7.10: Lost work day cases – by activity

Offshore [Data page B-5]

Onshore Offshore

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 108 38

Diving, subsea, ROV 1 8

Drilling, workover, well services 177 149 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 84 105 Maintenance, inspection, testing 97 144 Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 91 45

Production operations 124 99

Seismic/survey operations 12 2

Transport – air 7 20

Transport – land 89 2

Transport – water, including marine activity 13 93

Unspecified – other 76 43

Total 879 748

Lost work day cases by activity – onshore & offshore

Unspecified – other 8.6% Transport – water, including marine activity 1.5% Transport – land 10.1% Transport – air 0.8% Seismic/survey operations1.4% Production operations 14.1% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 10.4% Maintenance, inspection, testing 11.0% Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 9.6%

Drilling, workover, well services 20.1% Diving, subsea, ROV 0.1%

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 12.3% Unspecified – other 5.7% Transport – water, including marine activity 12.4% Transport – land 0.3% Transport – air 2.7% Seismic/survey operations 0.3% Production operations 13.2% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 6.0% Maintenance, inspection, testing 19.3%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 14.0% Drilling, workover, well services 19.9% Diving, subsea, ROV 1.1% Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 5.1%

(30)

Fig 2.8.1: Severity of lost work day cases – company & contractors

average days lost per LWDC [Data page B-5]

Fig 2.8.2: Severity of lost work day cases – onshore & offshore

average days lost per LWDC [Data page B-5]

2.8 Severity of lost work day cases

2013 (2012) severity Relative to 2012

severity Relative to 2008-2012 average severity Company 43.52 (38.81) 12% higher 18% higher Contractor 42.88 (41.28) 4% higher 6% higher Overall 42.98 (40.74) 6% higher 9% higher Onshore 35.76 (36.83) 3% lower 1% lower Offshore 51.21 (45.99) 11% higher 11% higher

OGP member companies reported a total of 45 777 days

lost (LWDC days) through injuries.

• The number of days lost was reported for 66% of the

database (see Appendix A and Appendix C).

• The offshore LWDC severity is 43% higher than

onshore.

• The number of days lost per lost work day case overall

has increased by 6% compared with 2012 results.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Onshore Offshore Overall

Severity of lost work day cases

Severity is defined as the average number of days

lost (where reported) for each lost work day case.

(31)

Fig 2.8.3: Severity of lost work day cases – company & contractors

average days lost per LWDC [Data page B-5]

Fig 2.8.4: Severity of lost work day cases – onshore & offshore

average days lost per LWDC [Data page B-5]

0 20 40 60 Overall Contractor Company 2013 2008-2012 0 20 40 60 Overall Onshore Offshore 2013 2008-2012

The figures show the average number of days lost per LWDC

in 2013 compared with the average for the previous 5-year

period. A 9% increase is shown in overall LWDC severity

when compared with the previous 5-year period.

(32)

2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases

Fig 2.9.1: Severity of restricted work day cases –

company & contractors

average days lost per RWDC [Data page B-6]

Fig 2.9.2: Severity of restricted work day cases –

onshore & offshore

average days lost per RWDC [Data page B-6]

0 5 10 15 20 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Contractor Company Overall 0 5 10 15 20 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Onshore Offshore Overall 2013 (2012)

severity Relative to 2012 severity Relative to 2008-2012 severity Company 17.17 (13.84) 24% higher 19% higher Contractor 14.24 (12.05) 18% higher 16% higher Overall 14.51 (12.21) 19% higher 16% higher Onshore 15.42 (11.48) 34% higher 25% higher Offshore 13.03 (13.41) 3% lower 2% higher

A total of 12 507 days were restricted (RWDC days) as a

result of restricted work day cases, in the sense that normal

duties could not be performed. This compares with 45 777

days lost (LWDC days) on a 24% larger dataset (see

Appendix A and Appendix C).

• The number of days lost per restricted work day case

overall has increased by 19% compared with 2012

results.

• The number of days lost to restricted work per case

increased most noticeably in onshore operations with

a rate of 15.42 for 2013, an increase of 34% compared

with the 2012 rate (11.48).

• The severity for company activities of 17.17 represents

an increase of 24% compared with the rate for 2012

(13.84).

Severity of restricted work day cases

The average number of days of restricted work per

restricted work day case.

Restricted work day case days are not reported

by all companies. The database for this analysis is

therefore reduced to 2,008 million work hours, 53%

of all reported hours (see Appendix A).

(33)

Fig 2.9.3: Severity of restriced work day cases –

company & contractors

average days of restricted work per RWDC [Data page B-6]

Fig 2.9.4: Severity of restriced work day cases –

onshore & offshore

average days of restricted work per RWDC [Data page B-6]

0 5 10 15 20 Overall Contractor Company 2013 2008-2012 Onshore Offshore 2013 2008-2012

The figures show the average number of days lost per

RWDC in 2013 compared with the average for the previous

5-year period. The overall average shows an increase of 16%

compared with the average for the previous 5-year period.

(34)

2.10 Incident triangles

In this section the relative numbers of types of occupational

injury are shown in the form of ‘incident triangles’. The

ratios have been corrected to account for the absence, in

some data submissions, of medical treatment cases.

2012 incident triangles

2013 incident triangles

Overall

73 recordable injuries

lost time injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

21

21 48 recordable injuries

79 recordable injuries

Company

Contractor

Overall

72 recordable injuries

lost time injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

20

28

18 69 recordable injuries

72 recordable injuries

Company

Contractor

Lost time injuries

Lost work day cases and fatalities.

Recordable injuries

Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work

day cases and medical treatment cases. Data are

only included where medical treatment cases are

reported for the data set.

Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities

The number of lost time injuries divided by the

total number of fatalities (Lost time injuries/

fatalities).

Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities

The number of recordable injuries divided by the total

number of fatalities (recordable injuries/fatalities).

Year Ratio of lost time injuries to

fatalities Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities

2013 21:1 73:1

2012 20:1 72:1

2011 22:1 93:1

2010 15:1 60:1

(35)

The varying ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries to

recordable injuries for 2012-2013 challenges the traditional

notion of recordable injuries and lost time injuries overall as

a precursor to fatalities as shown in the incident triangles. In

some incident categories however such as “confined space”,

“assault or violent act” and “water related, drowning”, the

ratio will be higher as shown in the tables below.

Activity LTIs (fatalities+LWDCs) Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 152 6 25:1

Diving, subsea, ROV 9 0 n/a

Drilling, workover, well services 339 13 26:1

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 191 2 96:1

Maintenance, inspection, testing 251 10 25:1

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 136 0 n/a

Production operations 232 9 26:1

Seismic / survey operations 16 2 8:1

Transport – air 44 17 3:1

Transport – land 97 6 16:1

Transport – water, incl. marine activity 118 12 10:1

Unspecified – other 122 3 41:1

Category LTIs (fatalities+LWDCs) Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality

Assault or violent act 19 9 2:1

Caught in, under or between 348 7 50:1

Confined space 4 0 n/a

Cut, puncture, scrape 99 0 n/a

Explosions or burns 64 4 16:1

Exposure electrical 15 1 15:1

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 21 1 21:1

Falls from height 179 3 60:1

Overexertion, strain 139 1 139:1

Pressure release 17 6 3:1

Slips and trips (at same height) 279 0 n/a

Struck by 377 10 38:1

Water related, drowning 38 17 2:1

(36)

2.11 Causal factors analysis

The allocation of ‘causal factors’ to fatal incidents and high

potential events was requested as part of the 2013 data

submission. This request was first made in 2010, therefore a

comparison of four years of data is possible.

To standardise the response an OGP list of causal factors

and a glossary was provided to the member companies as

part of the OGP User Guide. The causal factors list is

divided into two sections:

• People (Acts) classifications usually involve either the

actions of a person or actions which were required but

not carried out or were incorrectly performed. There

are four major categories of actions, with an additional

level of detail under each of the major categories.

• Process (Conditions) classifications usually involve

some type of physical hazard or organizational aspect

out of the control of the individual. There are five major

classification categories, with an additional level of

detail under each of the major categories.

(37)

Causal factors are divided into two separate groups, People

(Acts) and Process (Conditions), see OGP User Guide

(Report 2013su) and Glossary for details.

• 34 of the 43 fatal incidents reported were assigned

causal factors (47 of 52 in 2012)

• 222 causal factors were assigned for the 43 fatal incidents

• Between 2 and 16 causal factors were assigned per

incident (between 1 and 11 in 2012).

Causal factors assigned for fatal incidents 2013 2012

People (acts) 95 92

Process (conditions): 127 120

The causal factors assigned to fatal incidents are shown below.

The highlighted content indicates the top 10 causal factors

assigned to fatal incidents in 2013 compared with 2012, 2011

and 2010. Seven of the ten were the same for all four years.

Additional information on the fatal incidents reported

by region can be found on the OGP Safety Zone website:

http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/.

The information

provided includes a narrative description of the incident,

the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal

factors assigned by the reporting company.

Note: the top 11 causal factors have been shown

for 2013, as both the 10th and 11th most

common causal factors were both assigned to 9 of

the incidents. Similarly the top 12 causal factors

have been shown for 2012, as the top 9th, 10th,

11th and 12th causal factors were each assigned

7 times.

2.11.1 Fatal incident causal factors

Causal factors assigned for fatal incidents 2013 2012 2011 2010 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 21 13 10 13 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 16 11 16 14 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 15 15 8 10 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision 14 16 18 18 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 13 17 15 30 People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 12 13 9 16 People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 11 13 9 12 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products 10 7 6 9 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 10 6 11 7 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products 9 7 5 4 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 9 5 6 4 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication 8 6 9 12 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 8 4 4 6 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 7 9 4 5 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 7 4 6 1 Process (conditions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 6 4 4 9 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 6 4 8 7 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 5 5 6 5 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 4 5 5 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change 4 7 5 10 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 4 5 7 5 People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 4 7 2 8

(38)

The causal factors assigned to high potential events are shown

below. The highlighted content indicates the top 10 causal

factors assigned tohigh potential events in 2013 compared

with 2012, 2011 and 2010. Six of the ten were the same for

all four years Additional information on the high potential

events reported by region can be found on the OGP Safety

Zone website:

http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/

. The

information provided includes a narrative description of the

event, the corrective actions and recommendations and the

causal factors assigned by the reporting company.

Note: the top 11 causal factors have been shown

for 2010, as the top 10th and 11th causal factors

were each assigned 15 times.

• 124 of the 179 high potential events were assigned

causal factors (169 of 195 in 2012)

• 444 causal factors were assigned for the 179 high

potential events (603 in 2012)

• Between 1 and 16 causal factors were assigned per event

(between 1 and 14 in 2012)

2.11.2 High potential event causal factors

Causal Factors assigned for high potential events 2013 2012 2011 2010 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 44 54 20 37 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 35 61 24 47 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 29 36 15 22 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change 29 16 18 13 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 29 37 12 21 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products 28 27 13 16 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication 26 36 15 19 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision 24 44 18 31 PeopleE (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 24 38 21 23 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products 22 21 17 9 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 21 22 9 10 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 14 8 15 13 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 12 31 13 9 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 11 21 8 15 People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 11 23 15 27 People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 9 7 6 9 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 9 19 12 2 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 9 15 9 3 Process (conditions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 9 10 9 15 People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 8 13 3 9 People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 5 11 9 5 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 4 8 3 6 Process (conditions): Organisational: Failure to report/learn from events 4 3 2 4 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 4 2 1 3 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 4 5 3 3 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 3 6 5 6 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 3 2 2 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy isolation 3 5 3 6 People (acts): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 2 1 1 3 People (acts): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 2 5 3 3 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices 2 4 3 1 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 2 5 2 5 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 2 4 3 1 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 1 1 4 4 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 2 1 Causal factors assigned for high potential events 2013 2012

People (acts) 134 225

(39)

The following 8 causal factors were common to the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events in 2013.

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence

• People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment

• People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/

materials/products

• Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing

• Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/

products

The following 5 causal factors appear consistently in the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events for 2013,

2012, 2011 and 2010.

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence

• People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment

The 6

th

_{most common causal factor for fatal incidents, which did not show in the top 10 for high potential events was:}

(40)

Fig 2.12.2: OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2013 fatal incidents

per cent of total 2013 incidents

Line of fire – safe area 32.6%

No appropriate

rule 18.6% Insufficient information to assign a rule 14.0% Flotation device 11.6% Work at height 7.0% Seat belt 4.7% Suspended load 2.3% Overhead power lines 2.3% Journey management 2.3% Gas test 2.3%

Dropped objects 2.3%

OGP has released a set of life-saving rules (OGP Life-Saving

Rules, OGP report № 459, released Feb 2012), intended for

use by the oil & gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce

fatalities. Each OGP Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple

icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and

consistent communication about risks in the workplace.

These Rules were developed by using the fatal incident and

high potential event data from the 1991 to 2010 Safety

Performance Indicators reports to identify the events and

activities that are the highest risk and therefore provide

clear instructions on how to avoid them. The Life-Saving

Rules are split into 8 ‘core rules’ and 10 ‘supplemental rules’.

Assessment of the applicability of the OGP Life-Saving

Rules to fatal incident descriptions for 2013 data has shown

that at least 67% of the fatal incidents reported are covered

by the OGP Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented

by the adoption of this system. Insufficient information was

provided to be able to assign a rule for 6 of the incidents.

2.12 OGP Life-Saving Rules

Fig 2.12.1: OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2013 fatal incidents

per cent of total 2013 incidents

Insufficient information to assign a rule 14% No appropriate rule 19% Supplementary rules 51% Core rules 16%

(41)

Fatalities 2013 (2012) FAR 2013 (2012) Fatal incidents 2013 (2012) Africa 27 (17) 4.53 (2.83) 9 (13) Asia/Australasia 8 (10) 0.87 (1.35) 7 (10)

In this section the safety performance of the contributing

OGP members is presented for regions and individual

countries within those regions.

A list of countries from which companies have reported

information and the division of countries into regions is

provided in Appendix D.

North

America Europe

Africa

Former Soviet Union

Asia/ Australasia Middle East South & Central America

3.1 Fatalities by region

The table shows the number of fatal incidents and fatalities

in each of the 7 regions into which the data are partitioned.

Further analysis of the fatality statistics is presented in

Section 3.5, where 5-year rolling averages of FAR are

(42)

Submissions without information on medical treatment

cases were filtered out, leaving a database of 3665 million

hours, 97% of the database (see Appendix A).

Further Fatal Accident Rate analysis is presented in Section

3.5, where 5-year rolling averages of FAR are presented for

each of the regions.

3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) by region

Fig 3.3.1: Total recordable injury rate

per million hours worked [Data page B-7]

0 1 2 3 4 Overall South & Central America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia Africa 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost

work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical

treatment cases) per 1 000 000 hours worked.

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Africa 1.05 1.14 1.22 1.40 1.65 Asia/Australasia 0.97 1.37 1.46 1.30 1.22 Europe 2.58 2.64 2.81 3.05 3.48 FSU 0.81 0.99 0.99 1.08 1.21 Middle East 0.90 1.02 0.78 0.98 0.92 North America 2.58 2.82 3.19 2.89 3.08 South & Central

America 3.13 3.05 3.17 2.76 3.17 Overall 1.60 1.74 1.77 1.68 1.75 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Africa 4.53 2.83 1.25 3.38 2.21 Asia/Australasia 0.87 1.35 3.28 4.14 1.58 Europe 2.26 0.52 0.87 0.97 6.58 FSU 1.25 0.55 1.59 2.17 3.14 Middle East 0.63 1.95 1.74 1.63 2.16 North America 2.03 7.50 1.50 5.08 4.37 South & Central

America 4.37 0.54 2.42 1.57 2.37 Overall 2.12 2.38 1.88 2.76 2.76

3.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) by region

Fig 3.2.1: Fatal accident rate

per 100 million hours worked [Data page B-7]

0 2 4 6 8 Overall South & Central America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia Africa 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Fatal accident rate (FAR)

The number of company/contractor fatalities per

100 000 000 (100 million) hours worked.

(43)

Further analysis of the lost time injuries is presented in

Section 3.5, where 5-year rolling averages of LTIF are

presented for each of the regions, 100% of the database (see

Appendix A).

3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) by region

Fig 3.4.1: Lost time injury frequency

per million hours worked [Data page B-7]

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Overall South America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia Africa 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 LTIF 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Africa 0.31 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.42 Asia/Australasia 0.15 0.26 0.30 0.29 0.29 Europe 1.02 0.91 1.08 1.06 1.31 FSU 0.33 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.35 Middle East 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.26 North America 0.74 0.94 0.59 0.48 0.51 South & Central

America 0.85 0.69 0.64 0.61 0.69 Overall 0.45 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.45